Over at Public Discourse today, Christopher Tollesfsen has a very fine essay on various issues related to the HHS contraception mandate. Although I agree with most of it, I disagree on two very minor points. Here’s the first:
A Catholic hospital forced to provide contraceptive coverage could … seek to hire only those personnel who it was confident supported the mission of the Church, including its pro-life, pro-family mission. (That Catholic hospitals and universities have not done this is perhaps their greatest failing in their apostolic work, a failing that has contributed to the current HHS crisis in various ways.)
In some ideal sense, such a proposal may well make sense, but according to this page at the site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, there are about 600,000 full-time employees of Catholic hospitals and related entities in the United States. Although I happen to agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, I recognize that this places me in a very small minority (probably no more than two or three percent) of my co-religionists and an even smaller minority among the general population. I rather doubt that there even are 600,000 people qualified for the jobs who affirm the Church’s teachings on contraception. To be sure, this is in part due to the abysmal catechesis that the Church has provided Christ’s faithful for the last forty-five years, but wide and deep support for contraception is now—pardon the term—one of the facts of life, and it will not change anytime soon. Thus, even if it were legal, attempting to staff Catholic hospitals with people who agree with Humanae Vitae is utterly impracticable. It would be great if more people agreed with us, but until that happens, we need political strategies adapted to the situation of a small minority in a pluralistic liberal democracy.
Here’s the second thing I disagree about in Tollefsen’s post:
Perhaps [Catholic hospitals and universities] could request of their employees a “run” on the available contraceptives, and then publicly destroy, in protest, everything that had been obtained.
I have great respect for Christopher Tollefsen as a philosopher, and everything he writes is worth reading, but this proposal is simply harebrained. Because the financial capacity of the employees of Catholic hospitals and universities is small relative to the size of the contraception industry, and because the ability of that industry to expand production is very substantial, there is no chance that this proposal would reduce the availability of the products in question or increase their prices. In general, buying the products of companies in business to make money by selling such products is unlikely to harm those companies. On the contrary, it merely enriches those companies and impoverishes the people foolish enough to participate in such a scheme. Nor would such a public spectacle change anyone’s mind about the morality of contraception. For the time being, I happen to work for a Catholic university, albeit one extremely unlikely to adopt Tollefsen’s proposal. If my university surprises me, however, and requests that I hit the local CVS to buy up all the condoms and then join my co-workers in a great Bonfire of the Rubbers, I intend to take a pass.
Note: In an earlier version of this post, I had said that if a Catholic hospital attempted to hire only Catholics supporting the Church’s teaching on contraception, it would likely violate the federal employment laws. That is not correct. As my colleague Professor Michael Moreland kindly pointed out to me, under Title VII, religious employers like Catholic hospitals may restrict their hiring to members of the relevant religion, which is a different thing from the ministerial exception, which exempts religious employers from legislation concerning all forms of discriminiation, not just discrimination on the basis of religion, in connection with the hiring of ministers and similar employees. Yet another proof of what happens when lawyers talk about the law outside their area of legal expertise.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:07 pm
Here’s a thought – what if the Catholic Church just let this happen? After all, this (or something worse) is going to happen in the long run. Public opinion is far from our side here, and the argument can only be couched in an arcane “religious entitlement” sense. No one thinks that sane people are actually against providing contraception, and we are dooming ourselves to be relagated to the public status of the Amish – interesting, quaint relics of a bygone era with idiosyncratic habits that are probably harmful, but at least immature.
What if the Church let go of the hospitals and colleges? None of them are Catholic anyways? What if we staffed our public enterprises with actual Catholics? Sure, we would have far less of a footprint, but we would be forced to be, well, Catholic.
I think it is interesting to note that this is the straw that broke the heirarchy’s back – the destruction of the high-profile institutions that bring power and noteriety, but do little or nothing to advance an authentically Catholic presence in the public sphere.
I’m not saying this is the way to go, but it is worth entertaining. After all, it was the case that Church enterprises were staffed with devout Catholics a short 50 years ago, as most of them were staffed by nuns and religious brothers.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:08 pm
Or they can put their money where their mouths are. In general contraception is cheaper than abortion, abortion cheaper than childbirth. Covering contraception is highly likely to result in lower cost plans than vice versa. So what they could do in response is declare that they will not take ‘blood money’ in the form of savings. They can demand that insurance companies prepare an estimate of the cost savings they get from covering contraception, they can then either insist on paying the higher premium to the insurance company, take that portion of savings and offer more lavish benefits for more acceptable coverage (perhaps bring back a little bit of a hospital stay after childbirh) or just plow it into additional charity care.
I have great respect for Christopher Tollefsen as a philosopher, and everything he writes is worth reading, but this proposal is simply harebrained. Because the financial capacity of the employees of Catholic hospitals and universities is small relative to the size of the contraception industry, …
Well that and also insurance companies do not let you fill unlimited scripts for purposes of throwing pills away on protests. Generally a woman can get her insurance to pay for one 30-day pill supply a month. Asking for 1,000 months of pills will probably mean you’ll have to pay for 999 of them. Even then, there’s probably laws that limit doctors from writing unlimited scripts for non-medical purposes. The Bonfire of Rubbers idea is kind of silly since the mandate doesn’t cover rubbers for one. And as you said it’s not the world’s rubber manufacturing capacity is all that limited. China will happily sell us an extra 100 million or so for the Bonfire.
But if you really want to play games with insurance, here is probably the best economical way to do it. If you’re planning on having a baby, find the insurance plan that offers the most generous, most comprehensive coverage for abortion and contraception. Have your baby and demand everything you can from the 3-day hospital stay to one or two mental health visits a month or two later to make sure you don’t have post-partum depression. Then when all the dust is settled and everything seems ok medically, switch over to the plan that offers the least amount of abortion/contraception coverage. You will then have effectively taken as much as you can from the plan you least like and given as much to the plan you do like. Ohhh, if you happen to have some serious, major medical problem like cancer stay in the abortion plan….of course.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
Many (most? all?) Catholic dioceses and archdioceses note on their websites that they are equal opportunity employers, as do charities like Catholic Charities. Does Tollesfsen want an end to that.
As for buying up and destroying contraceptives, 15% of oral contraceptives are prescribed for reasons other than contraception. If a woman who has, say, endometriosis comes to a pharmacy and finds she can’t fill her prescription because Catholic protestors have bought out the pharmacy, that is not going to reflect well on the Catholic Church.
Harebrained is a good word for the proposal.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:43 pm
“They can demand that insurance companies prepare an estimate of the cost savings they get from covering contraception”
Why not do this? Because, um, that’s not how insurance works?
The Church should keep doing what it’s always done, and dare the government to punish them. That’s what civil disobedience is all about, after all.
February 20th, 2012 | 5:54 pm
The Church should keep doing what it’s always done . .
Brian,
Define “the Church.” Is Catholic Charities “the Church”? I think a diocese or a parish could reasonably be called “the Church,” but dioceses and parishes are exempt. I doubt that you think Notre Dame is “the Church.” Is a Catholic hospital “the Church”?
Of course, since the employer providing insurance does nothing different under the mandate (it is all left to the insurance company), if Catholic organizations just keep doing what they have always done, then things will work out just fine. We still don’t know, however, how this will work for the self-insured. But with the new “accommodation,” religious organizations don’t have to do anything new at all. They just provide insurance coverage and the insurance company does the rest. It would have to be the insurance companies that had to refuse to comply.
February 20th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
“Define “the Church.” Is Catholic Charities “the Church”? I think a diocese or a parish could reasonably be called “the Church,” but dioceses and parishes are exempt. I doubt that you think Notre Dame is “the Church.” Is a Catholic hospital “the Church”?”
I think those are the Church. I always have. Education at Catholic schools and volunteer work at Catholic Charities soup kitchens are certainly part of religious life. Donating clothing and food to the church charities are also part of religious duties. Catholic nursing homes and Catholic cemeteries are part of the Church, too.
I suppose there are those people who think “the Church” is that building with the pointy roof and pretty windows, and “religion” takes place only there, one hour per week.
However, it doesn’t matter how Brian, or you, or I define “the Church”. Even the Church no longer defines itself. The Obama Administration—tone-deaf and ignorant though it is on such matters—issues such definitions by fiat. That actually is part of our objection to the HHS mandate.
February 20th, 2012 | 8:08 pm
David: Yes, doing charitable work IS The Church. Running hospitals IS The Church. Running schools IS The Church. Finding homes for orphans and foundlings IS The Church. Always has been, always will be.
“since the employer providing insurance does nothing different under the mandate (it is all left to the insurance company)”
Seriously? You’re actually parroting this ludicrous line? Really?
February 21st, 2012 | 1:33 am
The Church is that lay woman in a small town in Ohio maintaining and keeping open a very minor shrine. In all this talk of great institutions she’s forgotten – and going to be left out in the cold.
February 21st, 2012 | 4:22 am
” I rather doubt that there even are 600,000 people qualified for the jobs who affirm the Church’s teachings on contraception. ”
Exactly.
No time for chasing rabbits.
February 21st, 2012 | 6:25 am
Brian
“They can demand that insurance companies prepare an estimate of the cost savings they get from covering contraception” Why not do this? Because, um, that’s not how insurance works?
Now that’s just silly. Insurance companies do not make cost estimates of the things they cover? More importantly, at maybe $500 a month times 600,000 employees an insurance company will do pretty much any darn analysis you request.
Peg
However, it doesn’t matter how Brian, or you, or I define “the Church”. Even the Church no longer defines itself.
You are wrong, the church does not define Catholic hospitals as churches nor does it even define most Catholic colleges as churches. Like it or not the bean counters looked at the revenue they could make as a church that incorporated a hospital versus what could be made as a church that just happened to own a hospital and they decided the later course was the way to go. Hence your Jewish doctor may admit you to that Catholic hospital down the street to do an operation on you but his rabbi need not bother applying for the job of priest at the Church ‘cross the street from it. You seem to miss the fact that one can have a secular institution for a religious purpose. I could own a Taco Bell and use its profits to fund my church, that doesn’t mean my Taco Bell magically becomes a Church and I’m allowed to fire all the Jewish employees for being Jewish.
Now you can say lots of things are the Church. Going to work every day to feed your family may be part of the Church too I suppose. But the Church is part of the larger world and it plays by the rules we all have to play by. If the Church doesn’t pay its electric bill because the electric company has abortion coverage for its workers, then it gets its account shut off. If the Church is running a shelter for orphaned children, the state has a legitimate right to demand that they have electricity to keep the lights and heat on for them. The principle of the moral condom says its the Church’s job to figure out what’s more important, trying to boss the electric company around or keeping the orphanage operating.
February 21st, 2012 | 9:14 am
Robert T. Miller wrote: I recognize that this places me in a very small minority (probably no more than two or three percent) of my co-religionists….
Yes the number is low, but that is shockingly low. Is it possible that 97% to 98% is in open rebellion against their church? If so, “abysmal catechesis” or not, that disconnect is the most pressing issue of all. I could see dealing with a 70% to 80% number (the same proportion of non-mass attending CINOs), but near unanimity of opposition indicates a catastrophe of fundamentals creating ten other catastrophes.
Believe me, I’m as cynical as the next guy about the Moral Therapeutic Deism infecting the church, but even I wouldn’t imagine the faithful remnant is a mere 2%! (And the Pelosi-cited 98% number from Guttmacher has been discredited/clarified.)
“One man with courage makes a majority.” The vindication of Humanae Vitae, published at the high-water mark of hedonist-materialism, and the sheer philosophical brilliance of Bl. John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body should give us all the courage we need. Only old dogs unable to learn new tricks are close-minded about the Catholic contraception argument: Nineteen Sixties-children, now gnarled elderly adolescents lecturing us about the latex and chemicals of “free love” is sick-making to us younger people. And whatever the arguments for or against, once doctrine is softened, the Mainlines’ slow enervation becomes our fate.
The constituency for a strong church is at least ten-times the number you cite, even if many of that constituency are hypocritical. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice gives to virtue. We are all sinners, but more than two percent of us strive for perfection through an open, if imperfect, obedience to doctrine.
February 21st, 2012 | 9:21 am
Define “the Church.”
It is the Bishop who defines the boundaries of the Church. A department in the Executive branch of the US Federal Government has no business in determining who or what is Church.
February 21st, 2012 | 9:52 am
Boonton: So, if I call up my insurance company and ask them to cut me a check to cover all the money I’m saving them by not smoking, they’ll be happy to do so? I’m a bit skeptical, but if you say so, I’ll get right on that.
“the church does not define Catholic hospitals as churches ”
No one said it did, but that’s a nice bit of misdirection you tried there.
February 21st, 2012 | 10:15 am
Here is what the Church-affiliated entities and individuals need to do if this mandate is not reversed:
(1) Drop insurance coverage for all their employees;
(2) Refuse to pay the $2,000 per employee fine based on the government forcing them to drop the coverage;
(3) Let the government start levying on bank accounts and seizing property to pay the fines.
February 21st, 2012 | 10:43 am
In reading Chris Tollefson’s article, I thought he was making the point that although there may be hypothetical ways to abide by the mandate and still maintain the institution’s integrity of witness – then he gives two hypos of how one could imagine doing so — these options were so absurd and unlikely to work that really the only option is to oppose and perhaps defy the mandate.
It’s not like he was seriously suggesting buying and destroying all the contraceptives, but rather he was saying “since it’s absurd to suppose” we would do these kinds of things, the only real option is to oppose the mandate. So your opposition to his absurd suggestions simply reinforces his point, that we must oppose the mandate even to the point of civil disobedience.
February 21st, 2012 | 10:53 am
Boonton,
The Hill surveyed fifteen different insurance companies the other day, and not surprisingly, drew the opposite conclusion from the one you drew. Providing something for “free” is not going to result in lower-cost plans, because those services are not in fact going to be “free.” They will cost money, and insurers will pass those costs onto their customers in the form of higher premiums.
Furthermore, a 2009 CDC report found that lack of access to contraception had nothing at all to do with who gave birth who had not planned on getting pregnant and had not used contraception. In addition, the CDC found that 99% of sexually active women of child-bearing age used contraception at least once, which means there is no issue at with respect to access.
See pages 14 and 15 here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf
Forcing employers to provide contraception for “free” will result in higher premiums, and “solve” a problem that exists only in the imaginations of the left.
February 21st, 2012 | 11:30 am
Here we go again. The secularizers want us to be good Christians INSIDE OUR CHURCHES. They have been at this all my life, even before I was a committed believer. I am old enough to remember St. Mario of New York lecturing us years ago to do this. His attempt to change the Faith preached by its Founder is now standard rhetoric for the culture of Death. That we have been commanded, by our Savior, to carry our Faith into the outside world has always scandalized (nee: outraged) them and scared timid believers. Yet the command remains.
February 21st, 2012 | 12:29 pm
“His attempt to change the Faith preached by its Founder is now standard rhetoric for the culture of Death. That we have been commanded, by our Savior, to carry our Faith into the outside world has always scandalized (nee: outraged) them and scared timid believers. ”
Right. If Jesus had only refrained from telling that story about the Good Samaritan, healing the centurion’s servant and teaching the woman at the well, He would meet the New Improved US Government Approved definition of “the Church”. Alas, he fails the test, and would not be exempted from the HHS mandate. Ditto for St. Paul, whose paper trail would provide much ammo for the HHS Religious Police and Legal Redefinition Squads.
February 21st, 2012 | 2:37 pm
Here’s a thought – what if the Catholic Church just let this happen? After all, this (or something worse) is going to happen in the long run. Public opinion is far from our side here, and the argument can only be couched in an arcane “religious entitlement” sense. No one thinks that sane people are actually against providing contraception, and we are dooming ourselves to be relagated to the public status of the Amish – interesting, quaint relics of a bygone era with idiosyncratic habits that are probably harmful, but at least immature.
Hey, what if we just all stopped having our religion, and joined the church we’re told to join?
It turns out that beliefs about sex do in fact impact culture. You get more of what you subsidize. If you subsidize teenage promiscuity, you get more promiscuous teenagers.
This is the dark before the storm. Religious people have been belittled and mocked and ridiculed, but right now is the moment when the evidence is rolling in, and the truth is on our side: all the things conservative churches have been preaching all these years are in fact good for people, for families, and communities. And abandoning those things in order to promote unrestrained sexual pleasure hurts children, hurts families, hurts communities – and doesn’t even lead to happiness for the people engaging in the worship of false idols.
February 21st, 2012 | 4:08 pm
King
(And the Pelosi-cited 98% number from Guttmacher has been discredited/clarified.)
Emphasis IMO on clarrified. 98% is women who what women who don’t want to become pregnant, who have a reasonable chance of otherwise becomming pregnant, do to avoid pregnancy. So yes the 70 yr old widow who doesn’t use birth control pills is not counted as complying with the Church’s teachings. IMO the study properly excludes people like her. Fact is we don’t know what the 70 yr old would do to avoid pregnancy if it was an issue for her. For all we know the first thing she would do if she woke up tomorrow as a 25 yr old women would be to fill a script for birth control pills.
Brian
Boonton: So, if I call up my insurance company and ask them to cut me a check to cover all the money I’m saving them by not smoking, they’ll be happy to do so? I’m a bit skeptical, but if you say so, I’ll get right on that.
YOu are aware if you buy insurance on your own you will be charged a lower rate for not smoking. So they will likely respond to your demand by noting you were already put in at the lower rate so you already got your savings in the form of lower premiums.
If you’re in an employer plan, the premium is basically an average of the entire pool being covered. So by not smoking you’re making the insurance premium cheaper in the same way if you go out to lunch with your coworkers and split the bill evenly you’ll lower the cost by having salad rather than steak and lobster.
Brian English
Here is what the Church-affiliated entities and individuals need to do if this mandate is not reversed:…(1) Drop insurance coverage for all their employees;…
Step 1.5, Catholic hospitals go out of business because talented doctors and nurses have better things to do with their skills and talents than put up with nonesense like this.
Step 1.6, various health care corporations buy up the Catholic hospitals the way Verizon and AT&T brought up the mobile phone companies about ten years ago. The $2K per employee tax is rendered moot because employees have families to raise and work for people that provide health benefits.
Tim
You are approaching health coverage like it is the dollar Menu at McDonalds. Get fries on top of the burger and it will cost twice as much. To the insurance company, the question isn’t so much what any one thing literally costs them but what the entire pool costs. For example, a live birth may cost $6500 and say contraception coverage may cost $150. If 43 contraception users on average mean one less live birth, the contracetive coverage is entirely offset, if it’s 100 users to 1 less live birth then the coverage costs money.
This is the same problem you get when you go out to lunch with everyone and split the bill because its easier to do that then itemize what each person had. That’s the nature of a pooled purchase and here the question gets even tougher because you can’t even see what everyone had. The insurance company gave you free bloodwork this year and the doc put you on a generic medication to lower your cholestero. Maybe that cost them $500 in actual payments out to the lab, doctor and pharmacy. Did it really cost them? Who knows? If you were the one guy who would have had a heart attack this year, $500 saved them many thousands. Would you have? No one really knows but you can at least approximate an answer for large populations which is why some things insurance companies are quite happy to provide.
The Hill surveyed fifteen different insurance companies the other day, and not surprisingly, drew the opposite conclusion from the one you drew. …
Suggest you read http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/february/10/obama-contraception-rule-faq.aspx The insurance industry didn’t object to the compromise at all even though the way it is set up they won’t know how many will or won’t be covered as they have to contact employees directly and ask them if they want coverage. Since they can’t go back and raise premiums on the Catholic hospital if many say yes, it essentially has to come out of their pocket if costs do indeed rise.
Real life examles seem to point to either no increase in cost or lower costs when contraception is introduced. Why that might be the case is probably much more complicated than just simply preventing live births (and preventing abortions!). For example, since the pill requires regular doctors visits, it may lead other health problems getting picked up and addressed in patients who would have otherwise not bothered with a checkup because they thought they were perfectly healthy. To really answer what coverage does to insurance payouts is a hard question to answer in the sense that you will need a lot more data and math than just asking “what was the premium the year before coverage and what was it the first year with coverage” but they are ones insurance companies will answer for their clients if clients demand it. If insurance companies have anything its plenty of data and plenty of phd level statisticians on hand.
February 21st, 2012 | 5:17 pm
“Step 1.5, Catholic hospitals go out of business because talented doctors and nurses have better things to do with their skills and talents than put up with nonesense like this.”
But they will have that wonderful public system to go into that people like you have been touting as the answer to all our healthcare woes. Why would they consider that “nonsense”?
“Step 1.6, various health care corporations buy up the Catholic hospitals the way Verizon and AT&T brought up the mobile phone companies about ten years ago. The $2K per employee tax is rendered moot because employees have families to raise and work for people that provide health benefits.”
You really have shown an amazing ability to miss the point on this issue in several different threads. The fact is, the Church-affiliated entities will no longer exist because of a regulation that was imposed that had nothing to do with their contribution to society. A secularist like you doesn’t care about that. You actually think that society would be better off if there were no Church-affiliated entities or individuals providing services to society. We get that. But sorry, the rest of us don’t have to agree with you.
February 21st, 2012 | 8:48 pm
But they will have that wonderful public system to go into that people like you have been touting as the answer to all our healthcare woes. Why would they consider that “nonsense”?
True having an MD is not exactly having a machine to print money and play golf all day Wednesday like it was in the old days, but it’s pretty lucrative. Nurses, likewise, are in great demand and can demand pretty good pay, esp. compared to earlier times. Let a hospital announce it is terminating health insurance and see what happens to its labor force. Businesses, even ones owned by Catholics, do not give employees health insurance because they are generous. They give it to them because they need labor and you have to pay for what you need.
As for the ‘public system’ I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about. Take away Medicare and Medicaid and you probably will eliminate 90% of Catholic hospitals and nursing homes in less than a year. Last time I checked any town’s local listings are filled with private doctors, nurses, health clinics, mini-hospitals, corporate hospitals and so on. If Catholic hospitals choose to self destruct, the rest of the market would be more than happy to snatch up the assets at fireside sales. If tomorrow Sprint Mobile was taken over by a crazed Amish fanatic who decided to cease doing anything with cell phones, the only people hurt will be stock holders. All that would happen to everyone else is that Sprint customers will be talking on plans from ATT or Verizon.
You really have shown an amazing ability to miss the point on this issue in several different threads.
Perhaps it’s because those who think they have a point have poor aim. Or maybe their points aren’t as sharp as they like to think.
Catholic Hospitals, will not shut down because of this regulation. This is a known fact because the regulation more or less mirrors what many states already require and not a single hospital closed ever because of it. No serious moral argument has been presented here that makes any sense if you apply even the slightest stress test to it. What this really is about is social engineering. The Catholic Bishops would like contraception to not be considered acceptable by default. Having it removed from the standard health plan would be a step in that direction. They are totally within their rights to advocate that, but that is not an issue of religious liberty but debate in a democratic society. And in a democratic society it’s totally possible to loose a debate. They won on abortion, lost on contraception. The claim that this is religious persecution is not valid and has not been supported here on this or any other thread I’ve seen.
February 21st, 2012 | 9:35 pm
Public Service Announcement:
Boonton is almost certainly a graduate student using these web comments to conduct a study in how long complete strangers will continue to engage in a discussion with a person who repeats and repeats preposterous arguments at great length, twists arguments, never acknowledges when one of them has been proven to be wrong, but then picks them up and repeats again and again.
How many times can he/she get people to continue to read interminable comments and actually try to make sense of them. How long before sensible people just stop reading or responding to the web postings under this barrage of digressions?
It will be a graduate thesis in sociology or psychology, and this web site will have contributed invaluable research assistance.
Authoritative studies demonstrate that 99% of First Things readers have figured this out, and simply skim past Boonton’s postings. 100% of them are very happy they did.
February 22nd, 2012 | 7:21 am
Boonton is almost certainly a graduate student using these web comments to conduct a study in how long complete strangers will continue to engage in a discussion with a person who repeats and repeats preposterous arguments at great length…
It would be funny if that were true. It would be even more ironic if it turned out I had fallen in with a group of other people conducting the exact same study. That hypothesis would certainly explain more than a few other commentators here.
February 22nd, 2012 | 11:08 am
“As for the ‘public system’ I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.”
Wow,even Nancy Pelosi knew that was in Obamacare.
“Catholic Hospitals, will not shut down because of this regulation. This is a known fact because the regulation more or less mirrors what many states already require and not a single hospital closed ever because of it.”
(1) We are talking about far more than Catholic hospitals here.
(2) The mandates in most states had far broader exemptions. For those that didn’t, Church affiliated organizations could self-insure, drop employee coverage, or could qualify for federal ERISA. There is no ability to escape from the federal mandate. So yes, if the mandate remains in force, you will see Catholic entities of various types closing, which I am sure will make you very happy.
“What this really is about is social engineering.”
Correct.
“The Catholic Bishops would like contraception to not be considered acceptable by default. Having it removed from the standard health plan would be a step in that direction.”
Jaw-droppingly incorrect. Is your reading on this subject so superficial that you actually believe the Bishops instigated this confrontation? This has nothing to do with the “standard health plan.” This has to do with the specific healthcare policies that are being purchased by Church affiliated entities and individuals. If you don’t understand that, then you are really wasting everyone’s time by commenting here.
“They are totally within their rights to advocate that, but that is not an issue of religious liberty but debate in a democratic society.”
Putting aside the First Amendment for a moment, which shouldn’t be hard for you to do since you appear to regard it as the equivalent of an informal procedure for fixing parking tickets, there was no debate on this. This is a regulation issued by HHS, not a specific law passed by Congress after debate. The Bishops and all individuals and entities affected by this power grab have every right to fight it.
“The claim that this is religious persecution is not valid and has not been supported here on this or any other thread I’ve seen.”
Forcing Church-affiliated individuals and entities to purchase insurance policies that provide services that they regard as morally objectionable does not implicate religious freedom?
February 22nd, 2012 | 11:34 am
There is no ability to escape from the federal mandate. So yes, if the mandate remains in force, you will see Catholic entities of various types closing, which I am sure will make you very happy.
Brian English,
Have any Catholic organizations closes as a result of state mandates? None. Have any Catholic organizations complied with state mandates?
As I have pointed out several times, dropping insurance coverage for employees saves an organization money. Now, in the long run, organizations that don’t provide insurance as a benefit may have trouble recruiting the kind of employees they want, so dropping insurance coverage for employees may harm them. But there is no reason at all why a Catholic organization would be forced to shut down as an alternative to complying with the federal mandate.
February 23rd, 2012 | 11:17 am
“Have any Catholic organizations closes as a result of state mandates?”
No, because there were escape routes, or they apostasized.
“Have any Catholic organizations complied with state mandates?”
So what? Since when do apostates get to determine the belief system for the religion they abandoned?
“As I have pointed out several times, dropping insurance coverage for employees saves an organization money.”
And as I have pointed out several times, we don’t set our moral principles based on doing a cost-benefit analysis.
“But there is no reason at all why a Catholic organization would be forced to shut down as an alternative to complying with the federal mandate.”
You really are incapable of understanding this is a moral issue.
February 23rd, 2012 | 6:01 pm
Brian English,
Apostate is a very strong word. I am quite sure if you asked Cardinal Dolan, for example, if Catholic organizations (like the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin) who have complied with a contraceptive mandate are apostates, he would very emphatically say no.
I said: “But there is no reason at all why a Catholic organization would be forced to shut down as an alternative to complying with the federal mandate.”
You said: You really are incapable of understanding this is a moral issue.
No, I understand the moral issue. I was making a practical statement. The worst that should happen is that a religious organization drops its employees’ insurance coverage. That will save the employer several thousand dollars per employee. There will be a government “fine” of $2000 per employee, which the employer can well afford to pay, since the savings from not providing insurance is a good deal more than $2000 per employee. For those who consider the $2000 per employee a “fine” for not complying, that is the price to be paid for “civil disobedience.” Maybe I am not thinking of something, but it seems to me there is always an honorable way out for a religious employer who does not want to provide insurance under the HHS terms. There are no provisions in the HHS mandate for forcing employers to shut down.
February 23rd, 2012 | 11:09 pm
(2) The mandates in most states had far broader exemptions. For those that didn’t, Church affiliated organizations could self-insure, drop employee coverage, or could qualify for federal ERISA. There is no ability to escape from the federal mandate
well actually there is, pay $2K per employee and then its up to them to buy their own insurance. Since insurance typically costs more than $2K per employee, this should be a boom to Catholic hospitals….esp. since the really smart people here have bent over backwards to explain that insurance isn’t compensation.
Re social engineering
Jaw-droppingly incorrect. Is your reading on this subject so superficial that you actually believe the Bishops instigated this confrontation? This has nothing to do with the “standard health plan.” This has to do with the specific healthcare policies that are being purchased by Church affiliated entities and individuals.
Errr, are you unaware of Catholic teaching on contraception? It is that it is an intrinsic evil. That means that stance doesn’t just apply to Catholics (such as the rule about not eating meat on Friday’s during Lent), but to everyone. Just like charity is an ‘intrinsic good’ that Catholics would encourage for all, incl. non-Catholics, contraception is to be discouraged for all.
So now the scissor of logic shall close in on you. Either the Catholic Bishops are indifferent to contraception in the wider society, or they want to discourage it in the wider society. If its the former, then they are in violation of Catholic teaching themselves. If it’s the latter then part of their position *must* by necessity be about more than the individual religious freedom of Catholic hospitals to be Catholic.
Now don’t get me wrong, you have every right to advocate social engineering. When Dan Quayle bashed Murphey Brown that was an attempt at social engineering via shaming. Just about every election sees politicians proposing special tax credits for people that have kids. But here’s the thing, your social engineering desires are nothing more than that. If you fail to convince people that your ideas are good, it ain’t no violation of your freedom. Maybe you will get people to buy it in the future, maybe you won’t but either way if you play the game you take the risk you may loose just as much as you may win.
This is a regulation issued by HHS, not a specific law passed by Congress after debate. The Bishops and all individuals and entities affected by this power grab have every right to fight it.
Well the health bill was passed by Congress, like it or not. And when HHS overruled the FDA and kept stricter controls on the morning after pill for teens I don’t recall anyone talking about ‘power grabs’. But you’re right, they have every right to fight it. But it’s not an infringement on the first amendment, not an infringement on religious liberty.
No, because there were escape routes, or they apostasized.
Speaking of which, what then is the logical conclusion of this ‘teaching’ in regards to health insurance for the individual? It would seem many Catholics work at private companies that offer insurance that covers not only contraception but also abortion. It would seem that to be logically consistent, it would be unethical for one to join such an insurance plan to cover themselves or their families. But you say the individual may join such a plan if he himself (or herself) does not actually use contraception or abortion despite it being covered! Not good enough! Poke holes in the moral condom and lots of stuff gets through! By being part of such a plan you, then, must be morally complicit in the funds going to others who are using such morally objectionable services, unless you could ensure that every employee covered would not utilize abortion or contraception.
February 24th, 2012 | 10:38 am
“Apostate is a very strong word.”
This is a time for strong words.
“Maybe I am not thinking of something, but it seems to me there is always an honorable way out for a religious employer who does not want to provide insurance under the HHS terms. There are no provisions in the HHS mandate for forcing employers to shut down.”
This is not about saving face. This is about the government forcing religious entities to support what they consider immorality. You appear to downplay this because it involves contraception, but pursuant to your approach, the HHS regulations could be amended next year to cover surgical abortions, and the religious entities would have to just go along with that as well.
February 24th, 2012 | 10:44 am
“this should be a boom to Catholic hospitals”
We don’t establish our moral principles by doing a cost-benefit analysis.
“So now the scissor of logic shall close in on you.”
Are you for real?
“Well the health bill was passed by Congress, like it or not.”
But these regulations were not voted on, were they?
“Speaking of which, what then is the logical conclusion of this ‘teaching’ in regards to health insurance for the individual?”
This is about government coercion, not about your silly, ponderously long, hypotheticals.
February 24th, 2012 | 1:18 pm
Brian’s comments nicely demonstrate that this is not really about coercion but about social engineering.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact